masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Cannibal
Deletion? Hasn't the Cannibal been pretty much confirmed to be in Mass Effect 3 and had its basic details released? Aleksandr the Great 02:27, June 8, 2011 (UTC) :Pretty much, but even with the demo we've seen too little of these guys in action. We also don't know the exact names for their powers/attacks, or what weapons they're shooting. A lesser, but still central issue, is that we lack a proper enemy infobox for ME3 enemies as well; this isn't a showstopper since ME3 enemies appear to work on a gameplay level like ME2 enemies, so the ME2 enemy infobox could be substituted for the time being if we had to. But I'd still favor holding off on creating the article. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:36, June 8, 2011 (UTC) ::Not to mention thta the article sitll contained the "Write the text of your article here!" and it's only content was a picture. Situations like this in the past have resulted in instant deletion. However the article needs more content and Commdor pointed out the problem, we have no information on them, and if anything, not remotely enough to justify an article. Lancer1289 02:45, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I went and added apparentley a false speculation to either the ME3 or Husk page awhile ago. I thought I had seen Batarian husks alongside Krogan and Human husks. But apparentley the Krogan husks have 4 eyes or something, I wonder if any other races were turned into husks, regardless as long as there is a variety of enemies it will still be fun. -- 02:23, June 9, 2011 (UTC) :Please take comments like this to the appropriate places, which are the forums and blog posts. Lancer1289 02:48, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Delete...again Seriously, we don't know anything about them, and not enough to justify an article. We can wait until we have more information. So I vote delete...again. Lancer1289 00:26, June 13, 2011 (UTC) :Support deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:52, June 13, 2011 (UTC) :Strongly oppose. I strongly dislike this trend of deleting Mass Effect 3 articles. When ME2 was coming out articles were added left and right when info was revealed, and it didn't cause any problems then. All it meant was we had the most complete collection of Mass Effect 2 information anywhere, not something to be scoffed at. They started small and grew as more info came out. There is no reason not to have articles about ME3 that we know will become larger articles when the game comes out. This isn't Wikipedia, if it's in Mass Effect it's notable enough for an article.JakePT 09:47, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::I just want to elaborate a little. I've noticed a worrying trend among some editors, of deleting things rather than trying to improve them. Rather than adding the information we do know, which makes this article about as long as Vega's, and he gets one, it goes right up as a candidate for deletion. I've also noticed this with some trivia edits. A recent trivia edit to the Omega article was deleted, even though a short Google search showed that not only was it supported, but a developer had outright confirmed it. So instead of justifying deletion, it justified making the wording stronger.JakePT 10:22, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I'm leaning on opposing deletion. Unlike the "Unidentified Reaper" page which has a very vague and unconfirmed name, this one has the developers announcing and detailing info on an actual enemy. — Teugene (Talk) 11:07, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I agree with both JakePT and Teugene. Thanks for roasting my Reaper article too, btw. LordDeathRay 11:12, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, I think we know enough about Cannibals to let this article be. Also, they have human faces on their shoulders, wasn't it confirmed that they are part human, too? --kiadony 11:28, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::Also against deletion. -- Dammej (talk) 11:32, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I too am against deletion, after reading JakePT's reasoning. Also, it was indeed confirmed that they are batarian-human combos, so that should go in the article. Arbington 12:59, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::I oppose the deletion of the article... there is enough info for a page, though it should be a stub until more info's added. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:54, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose, also i'm pretty sure it doesn't eat enemies rather dead husks.--Legionwrex 17:00, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose deletion for reasons stated above. The Illusive Man 17:16, June 15, 2011 (UTC) ::As JakePT has shown that there is in fact a lot more information about this enemy than I thought, I strike my original vote and now oppose deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:59, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I'm against deletion, there's plenty of basic information out there to justify a page. In fact this is probably the most detailed ME3 enemy so far. Aleksandr the Great 20:00, June 15, 2011 (UTC) "There is no reason not to have articles about ME3 that we know will become larger articles when the game comes out." Couldn't of said it better myself JakePT. I compare it to the character pages being made over at the FF Wiki in the months before Dissidia 012; some users were getting mad that the pages were being made with little info, but then it's like "We're obviously gonna have more info as we go along, so if we delete the page now, we'll just end up recreating later." If we have any info on anything relating to ME3, it should be on the wiki, whether that means a page of its own, a mention on a trivia page, or even just acknowledgement by users like us in forums and blog posts. That's my $0.02. A.J. two 20:55, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I also oppose the deletion of this article. They've already been established as enemies and therefore, should have an article. Once more information is revealed, the article will grow anyway.--Direct Control 23:33, June 15, 2011 (UTC) I like the idea of creating this article. As said above it could gradually be added onto and grow. I oppose deletion of this article. --Scout117 20:25, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with him, i dont want to see this article deleted--Changonauta 01:01, June 16, 2011 (UTC) Keep it. Matt 2108 04:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC) If the information is dev-confirmed, then I oppose deletion (if nothing else, it gives editors something basic to work with come next year). Still, should any such page indicate that the information pertains to an unreleased game (or DLC, or whatever the case may be)? --AnotherRho 22:44, June 16, 2011 (UTC) With the overwhelming opposition to this proposal, will the deletion banner be removed at any point?--Azureus Risen 01:37, June 17, 2011 (UTC) :Delete tags will remain on an article for a week to allow everyone to voice their opinion here on the talk page. The tag was added on June 13th, so it'll stay up until June 20th. -- Dammej (talk) 03:05, June 17, 2011 (UTC) We should keep it, provided we know that the batarian husks are cannibals. When I started the Purgatory page I started it with about the same if not less information than this article and one picture and one link that even qualified that the thing existed. I would have felt discouraged from even participating in the wiki had it been deleted. So I say keep it, unless we can't prove the image is of a cannibal.--Xaero Dumort 03:34, June 17, 2011 (UTC) :Yeah, JakePT makes some pretty compelling arguments here, and we do seem to have a bit of info. The name also seems pretty much confirmed. If there were an issue of the name being an assumption, or a colloquialism, or something like that, I'd support deletion. But it isn't, so I don't. So, Spart is officially on the "do not delete" bandwagon! SpartHawg948 04:10, June 17, 2011 (UTC) so far the cannibal is the only character described since no one else knows about the asari and turian husks we should keep the article and build more info on it when it is released ::Oppose. There is more info on this enemy than any other ME3 Enemy page on this wiki (besides Husks). Darth Gheis 14:57, June 19, 2011 (UTC) The deletion proposal has failed 1-21. The article stays. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:27, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Not Just Batarians * *minor spoilers follow* So, in the Mass Effect art book, it has the following about the Cannibals (page 152, final paragraph): "The cannibal is a Reaper version of a bartarian '''with a human corpse for an arm. The corpse's legs fuse with a large gun.' This seemed appropriate, as the Reapers' early fronts during the invasion were in batarian and human space."'' So, the page on the cannibals needs to be edited, unless we should wait for when the book is officially released? --Soren7550 17:36, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :The book was officially released last week, so I've added the info to the article. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:41, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Oh, I thought it was being released the 20th. My bad! --Soren7550 22:36, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :No, you're semi-right. Barnes & Noble lists the book's release date as Feb. 21st, but the BioWare Store and the retailer I ordered from started shipping copies on the 8th (and some who have ordered the book through B&N have also reported getting their copies last week as well, so it's pretty confusing). -- Commdor (Talk) 22:57, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Vulture The ME trivia contest from GeForce includes a concept art picture with some of the husk forms. It shows the rachni with the little creatures, but also has some interesting name changes, Arbiters are Tyrants, and Cannibals are called Vultures. I don't really think it is trivia worthy as we don't know much, but it might be. Might also be worth it to keep it in mind in case Vulture is the name in other countries for whatever reason. I'm going to try and link it, if it is inaccessible, I'll upload it. Husks--Xaero Dumort 18:39, February 29, 2012 (UTC) Like a Scion? Isnt the Cannibal very similar to a Scion, not as powerfull but still it has these things in common: *Fused Arm Cannon *Made by fusing another husk to another to help build the gun Hoping this gets into the trivia--Stabber ApSig 01:05, April 27, 2012 (UTC) Health Just wondering if this is this by any chance a fair guide to enemy stats which we can use on the wiki? Originates from the forums. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 19:57, January 24, 2013 (UTC) :First link is dead. Second, neither is official so not usable. Because of prior experiences with game data information, and information taken from others, we require that they all be official. I believe that this has been explained multiple times before. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:59, January 24, 2013 (UTC) ::Fixed link (I hope) for what it's worth. I was wondering whether that was official or not, since it looked really detailed, if a bit dated. I'm not on the forums or the wiki much these days, but I just figured that some data might be better to use than subjective opinions. If there is any official data out there, I think it would be a good idea to use it. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 20:12, January 24, 2013 (UTC)